The data are tolerably well described in Australian implementation
standards for HL7.
See -
http://www.saiglobal.com/shop/Script/PortalInformatics.asp
Ian.
At 12:37 am +1100 13/3/06, Uma Srinivasan wrote:
I agree with Tim that the issue is not the web services technology, but
identifying, describing and agreeing what each service wants to share. So
the crux of the problem is defining the minimum data set that people agree
and want to share. Then the associated metadata will need to be defined and
offered as a description service. If this is done not every one has to write
n(n-1)/2 interfaces. So it is back to people, policy and procedures.
Uma Srinivasan
On 12/3/06 3:13 PM, "Tim Churches" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Clarke wrote:
Hi Tim,
Your point on the number of interfaces is quite correct, however I think
the formula should be:
For n systems, where n> 1, the number of interfaces is : n(n-1)/2
e.g. 4 systems requires 6 interfaces, 5 systems = 10 interfaces, 6
systems = 15 interfaces, 10 systems require 45 interfaces .... and then
we move into mind blowing numbers !!
Whether you need to divide by two depends, of course, on how you define
an "interface" - but you are right in that bi-directionality is usually
assumed. Alas, the transformation of health data is rarely perfectly
symmetrical or commutative, so although the effort in writing those
interfaces involved is probably less than n(n-1), but is usually more
than n(n-1)/2
Tim C
Tim Churches wrote:
David Guest wrote:
Webservices does not seem that daunting a technology. My concern is
about standardising the minimum datasets and calls that they will
provide. Communication between disparate applications is much easier
with RPC/SOAP but you still don't want to write (n-1)! interfaces.
It's not as bad as you think, David! To get n information systems which
each use their own dataset definitions and semantics to talk to one
another, you only need write n(n-1) sets of interfaces, don't you?. For
n > 4, n(n-1) < (n-1)!
However, either way you are on a hiding to nothing. Bring on the
minimum/core dataset definitions (or I should say, let the argy-bargy
over what needs to be in the minimum/care dataset definitions commence!)!
Tim C
Dr. Uma Srinivasan
Director
PHI Systems Pty Ltd
(Pervasive Health Information Technologies)
Tel: +612 8754 1504
Mob: 0415 162 314
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email
to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
